your suggestion is that direct subsidies may not go away, despite some great interest on people's park for that to happen. >> the dirty little secret about direct payments is that farmers really like them. they are reluctant to give them up. they agreed to give them up. we will have to see. senator stabenow says we will have another fight over this. >> how about food stamps? >> there has been a push by some conservatives, particularly, in both the house and senate to decouple the food stamp program and some of the nutrition programs, school lunches and whatnot, from the more agricultural parts of the farm bill that people from farm states do not necessarily know,

but that has always been part of the bargaining. you get these urban lawmakers to vote for the farm bill in part because of all the benefits that come to their poorer constituents. this really would be no way to get a farm bill done at all if you did not have these lawmakers from more populated -- more densely populated areas on board because of the food stamps. >> as we close out here, it is worth observing what senator stabenow said. farm policy is not arcane. thank you for being here this week to ask questions of the incoming chairman of the senate agriculture committee. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> tamara, it changes to the u.s. tax code as the passage of the bill. and a look at what is in the fiscal cliff litigation.

j hancocks talks about the casses and fees americans face in 2013 as part of the affordable care act. >> i tend to think there is a flare-up of low hanging fruit that is appealing to all. i found it to be like you were saying. our whole spectrum is totally whacked. i do not think -- and appeal to people on a reasonable set of points and to show the series of financial bait and switch is is a total joke.

the stimulus package never made it to the small business. that is a host of examples where i do not think it is that difficult to talk to and educate people. >> you look like you were about to jump in. >> i was going to say that my starting point is where people are. it may be that civil rights organizations are spent forces. and maybe that trinity based organizations are narrow minded and to anxious to get the income grants and to build five units of housing. that is not going to change the system. that is where people are. for the last four years i've been working with the building trades.

i have been working with them to the young black and latino kids of color into the building trade so they can become the workers. as conservative as they are, that operate 1200 job training centers in the construction grade. it is the second-largest job training mechanism outside the u.s.. guess what? there in a coalition filled with many other organizations that train high-school dropouts working together for the last four years to say "how do we change, how do we improve?" the national leadership has gone across 350 cities in u.s.. try to convince them that they need to change.

this is encouraging. i think we have to do that kind of work. i think people like me would be justified in writing this people off. in order to change america and need them. they need me, too. i have been on the street. if you do not have a plant and no capacity to run a city he gets shot and people go to jail.

you lose in the end. people have much more staying power. you have not done real deep work with people in your group to continue the fight. this is not one i want to lose. i think the states and the dangers are bigger than they ever were. >> 30 4% of african american men were there. there was one confederate memorial after another. it reminded me of the breakdown in the lobby or in times of economic dislocations people would be treated areas about where they come from and where they are dead so that the war between states is no longer about slavery.

is about a state's rights. we have two sections of this country like the christian right in these difficult narrative's. you cannot rationally argue from people 6000 years ago. the only thing you can do is reintegrate them into the economy. we had several hundred white guys marching through my family

to carry out an inaccurate operation. you cannot carry out the dialogue. that is what is frightening. there's a very long list of people they hate. i see that break down occurring because of economic disintegration. ? and i even watched this entire event was supporters of the occupier movement. analyzing the impact of technology on elections. that is all starting at 8:00 eastern time here on c-span.

>> the big discussion that i remember was what is richard nixon going to do? >> i was scared to death. this was like a time bomb. >> he said the council has just brought me a list of 15 names of people. this is a very unpleasant thing to happen to you. >> is surely after the farewell speech the chief of staff calls me. i cannot remember exactly what he said. he said they forgot one thing. we forgot a resignation letter. i will be glad to read it. you need to write it. >> i thought the best way was not for me.

it was for the players to keep people living to tell the story did themselves. i've got the best way to do this was start a video program that involves players in the watergate drama from the left and the right to have them tell the story and then to use portions of that story in a museum to let visitors understand the complexity of this constitutional problem. >> he tells the library's oral history project. tonight it 8:00. >> necks and discussion about hollywood's portrayal of hollywood'samong those we'll hear from the crete or the of the show "homeland." this is an hour 20 minutes.

>> good evening again. welcome back to the forum. be not the one you'll applauding for. you know we have public events, public forums in our headquarters campus about once a month. and we've had former presidents and foreign ministers and ambassadors and please chiefs. we have never, to my knowledge, had anybody who has ever created, let alone starred in movies or tv series until tonight. and we have michael linton to thank for that. michael is co-chair politics aside 2012 just like 2010 and he, of course, is a trustee so we're delighted to have him. he'll moderate tonight. and with him and i'll ask the panel to come forward. howard gordon and michael sheen.

>> figs of all, thank you for being here this evening and thank you for being here on a friday night. i don't do this for a living so you're going to have to fill in in the middle. let's start off with we all know the wonderful shows and movies you've been involved with, many of which have overlapped with politics from "homeland," "the queen", so the first thing i'd like to ask -- i'd like to talk about the shows "homeland" and "the queen."

where did those come from in the first place? >> "24" came from a basic idea, two writers. joel said it was an in the shower idea. i'm thinking about television and in television there are 22 or 24 episodes in a season, thinking about the number 24 and said could you do an entire series of television over the course of one day. and i was an executive at fox at the time and when he came in and said this to me and that was an intriguing notion could you do an entire series of television over one day real time.

then he laid out the barest bones of a story that would support that. it's a guy day of the california primary first an african-american was shot at the white house and he got word of an assassination attempt and it's his job to stop it, meanwhile his teenage daughter goes missing, that was sort of the beginning. i had zero faith he was going to be able to write it well but

it was worth the price of admission to see and that's where it all began. and howard came into "24" beginning with episode two and carried it all the way to the end and wrote many of the greatest episodes and brought the series to a close in its last episode. but it began with an idea in the shower just thinking about the form of television. >> it was actually the day before a wedding so it wasn't until terrorism was something that came as a second integration. >> i never heard the day before the wedding version of it. >> because it didn't work as it turned out. >> then, of course, the show went on the air and got ordered in the spring of 2001 and then the pilot was made and finished and we ordered it then and went on the air in september of 2001. and so we ended up delaying the premiere by a week and went on two or three weeks after 9/11. >> it certainly changed the way we viewed the show.

it's interesting that it itself pat ro moin wasn't born out of 9/11 which a lot of people think, but it was midwifed by it and viewed through it. relevant to tonight's conversation is some of the issue that is became relevant to the show like how do we prosecute the warren terror. jack resonated with the audience because whatever failure of intelligence allowed 9/11 to happen, jack was that character, filled in the gap and equally problematic not only were the terrorists but were the bureaucracies that allowed it to happen. as that story became more complicated, jack became a darker character and through the lens of guantanamo the story he became less heroic character and more complicated certainly.

>> and "homeland"? >> that was based on an veil series. and the show came to me from an israeli company. that one was a far more specific translation from the original. that was about two prisoners of war who are traded after 17 years of captivity to israel where it was kind of a rip van winkle drama. it dealt with substantially the idea of what is the price of a returning soldier who has been in captivity and something that was specific to that country and to that culture.

and when it came our way, alex and i who is my writing partner on it and he runs the show, knew that was going to be a -- it was not something that would be relevant in the way it was presented in his original it ration. >> it's a very culturally resonant story in israel and everyone has a personal connection to the idea of p.o.w.'s and people missing. here guys knew it would be an anomaly if we found a soldier suddenly alive in afghanistan or iraq. so i think it was the anomalous nature of it that led them to this story. >> what was amazing to us and what was relevant is the idea that nowhere on american television had a returning soldier returning from war been

portrayed. and obviously in very circumstances in the case of our character, but that was something that really interested us but it felt like a good way to dramatize a lot of the questions we answered on "24" in a more knew answer fashion ten years after 9/11. a lot of questions that weren't clear then are even more complex now. what do we have to be afraid of? what's the price of our security? and these are the characters we created to ask those questions. >> and michael, with "the queen" what prompted that?

it came from another deal. it was a trilogy of films. the deal was a film made for british television about the supposed deal that was made between tony blair and brown before they got into power with the labor party. and the deal, the first one came along at a time when the idea of portraying very prominent public figures certainly within the realm of politics nobody did that unless it was sketch shows, comedy that kind of thing. the idea of actually depicting presidents, the idea of doing that is you can't take it seriously, that kind of thing. so the idea that peter morgan who is a well respected writer but hadn't found his voice up to that point.

it wasn't until he wrote "the deal" he found his groove. having him on board and having proper producers behind it gave it a seriousness and a weight that nothing had had before that was looking at these sort of people. so "the deal" was on tv. i was offered the part and no one knew what to expect. everyone expected it to fail and not work. and i think through a combination of factors, the tone was right and it was acceptable and suddenly once the tone was acceptable and people were able to accept watching a drama which includes tony blair in bed. as soon as you take that

seriously it opens an entire new universe of politics, history and opened up a can of worms as well. but the fact that that worked so well and was so accepted and respected and celebrated when it came out, because it did very well. that led to "the queen" and the possibility with that subject matter. we didn't expect that many to be excited about the supposed deal between blair and brown before they went into government. but about the queen and the family and lifting the veil. you thrift veil and this is an extraordinary world we've never seen inside of. so "the queen r queen" came directly from the deal. >> what did tony blair think of

it? >> next question. >> i want to know president obama said "homeland" is his favorite show. my question is when you're dealing with live, real people who you are portraying or in the case of "homeland" or "24" when you're trying to deal with agencies that you are representing, what is that interaction like? we were talking a little bit in the room next door, maybe you can answer michael, how is tony

blair's perception changed as a result of those films or the queen's perception changed in the minds of the public then we can talk about "homeland" and "24"? >> there are many things that you realize that you are working with when you do a film or a tv show that is -- has so much political emphasis. and one of the things is inevitably you come up against the agenda of people in terms of the agendas they have for looking at and judging politicians and public figures. which in my experience people tend to be more comfortable looking at things black and white and you want people to fit into a certain box so you can judge them against other people and make a choice and all that. and of course the first duty of an artist is to go beyond black

and white and become three dimensional and make it real and make it contradictory because that's what human beings are and make it vulnerable which goes in the face of the way people want to view politicians. and you realize very quickly dish know when it was announced that we were doing "the queen" having done "the deal," i would have prominent people in the industry saying things to me like i'm looking forward to you giving it to blair. that's not really what i'm going for. and you realize there is a really strong agenda here and everyone projects on to you their own politics which and once it came out i realized quickly if we did the job well, people would still think we had done a hatchet job or we had done a great booster job for

these people. but people project on to it what they want to see. people who are anti-blare and people problare we did a problair perform sons people read in what they want to read in. in terms of the actual people, there was a huge amount of suspicion. >> on the part of the tony blair? >> yes, the new labor movement, a big part of it were about controlling the media and making sure everyone's message, that delicate balance between the media and their policies, the idea of this rogue group that was going to color people's view of them that they have no control of was difficult for

them. at the same time blair was -- subsequently it's hard to pin down what blair thinks abet because he says he's never watched any of them which is not true. when i did meet him he newsome things better than i did. i understand he has to say he hasn't see them. he doesn't want to answer questions. that's fair enough. but i suspect that there is a certain amount of -- that he's

quite proud that it's being portrayed like that and there have been a few films made about it. and on the other hand he's suspicious. when i did meet him it was a push me pull you relationship we had. on the one hand it was fascinating meeting someone who played him and knew a lot about him and at the same time anything he said or did i might be using. when i met him i met him just before we did the third one and he knew that we were making it and i actually met him at murdock's house which i was very kindly invited to by mr. murdock's wife who thought it would be entertaining to put me and tony blair together. which it was. and i thought this is probably -- i had had a few chances to meet him which i had pushed down because i try to stay away from everyone i was going to play. but i thought at this point i really want to get a smell of it. i want to know what he's like on an animal level and how he moves the air and how people react and what smell does he give off which really helps. but when i got there we had an initial chat again where he said he hadn't seen anything. and then talked about certain things. and then his chief of staff and

the lady who headed up his foundation were there and they had been briefed to keep me away from him because the rest of the evening they were on me. but they got progressively more and more fluid. i wasn't drinking and they started telling me incredibly discreet things about him which we used. but one thing i was going to say, the extraordinary thing is each time i played blair i would go back and look at any documentaries that came out since the last one. when we came to do special relationship a major documentary had been made because he wasn't in power anymore which was interesting and covered a lot of the areas we covered. but when the interviewer asked blair so the first time you met the queen, i believe as prime

minister t morning after you won the election i believe that you're meeting was slight awkward that a few things happened that weren't protocol. do you remember what happened. he says well what do they do in the film? so he used the film. >> art imitates life. >> as a way to answer that question. an extraordinary reversal of fame. >> howard and david, so when you, with both show, with "homeland," now, and with "24" in the past, were there interactions with government agencies, particularly around the airplanea of counterterrorism, between yourselves and those agencies and did they respond at a all to what was going on on the show? >> i mean, you know, no.

the show is so fundamentally propost-rouse, both are, when you think about it, but "24," the idea that so much could happen, begin, and have a middle and end within 24 hours is fundamentally kind of crazy and "homeland" posits that the c.i.a. is operating on our soil which as far as i know isn't happening. but there is an emotional truth to the characters and i think, ultimately, our relation shitch with the military and the intelligence and counterterrorism agencies were really, they were fans. they became fans of the show. and they just kind of, we got calls from people from the pentagon, and from -- >> both shows were done and conceived without cooperation and without any real purported -- >> no endorsement. >> no, no connection to how they actually run. that was never part of the premise of the show. i've done, attempted some shows

that have not seen the light of the day with actual cooperation of government agencies, a whole other thing, i work forward long time on a show with the f.b.i. and also with nasa, neither of which, probably not uncoincidentally, probably not coincidentally never came to fruition. but these shows, "homeland" -- i mean "24" made up its own organization, c.t.u., to avoid it. with "homeland" it was a step toward reality so it does allude to the c.i.a., but -- >> our relationship with the military was interesting. initially obviously these agencies and -- they want to keep arm's length and once we -- once they became fans, i think it was that simple they just enjoyed it and felt, this is portray, when we did portray

a general or soldiers in the case of "24" for instance, the military became cooperative. we had a pentagon liaison. it got to the point where we said, we need a couple of f-16's at the l.a. river at 2:15, can you do it? and they said, sure. it got great. a lot of -- a lot of production value. and obviously they thought that their public affairs and their public image through that show was projected in a certain way. also -- by the same token i was visited by the general of west point, the guy was the dean of west point, a few years later, when there was some hue and cry that some investigators in iraq and in afghanistan were being influenced by the content of the show and that their interrogation techniques were being -- were being informed by jack bauer. now, you know --

>> let me ask you a question. or finish your thought. >> i'll go back to it. >> my question clearly, or maybe not so clearly, i asked a question on the issue of terrorism and counterterrorism in this country, "24" and "homeland" may or may not have had an effect on the popular view of it. but particularly "24" and i know you were involved with the film "unthinkable," torture is a prominent component of the show. >> that became an interesting part. >> and to what extent do you think that film and that show entered into the debate particularly under the bush administration? >> i think, with "24," there was no idea, an it was promoted in certain articles, there was a con flation of politics, because joel, who created the show is a public conservative, the spectrum of political affiliations on the staff were from the far left to the far right. but there was no agenda. the idea that there was an agenda that was the charge,

that we were somehow the mid wife to a public policy on interrogation was absurd. it is absurd. which isn't to say that if there was an issue, if in fact our content was affecting the behavior of interrogators in the field, whatever bandwidth, even if it was .05% of those interrogators taking their cue from jack bauer, there was a systemic problem and i sugg je wed try to intervene on behalf of those people. disabuse nem of the fact that this is a television show. and it is a television show. but it did -- again, i may be pollyannaish about this but the fact that "24" became the political football it game for -- it became for a while anyway was a valuable thing. it was the trojan horse through which that subject. >> there was a key article in

the new yorker, jane mayer wrote, at the height of "24," it was part profile of joel cerno, part a look at the terrorism, i think she's fundamentally a washington military journalist and hadn't done a lot of stuff in television, popular culture and it was sort of an interesting moment for the show. i'm still not sure if it was helpful for the show or harmful. >> i think undoubtedly it was harmful. somebody at a party said to me, i used to watch the show until i found out it was promoting torture. these things are, they seem to approximate some sort of logical conclusion but they don't. >> popular -- you were saying it before, popular, one of the things that makes it popular is people are able to read into it what they want.

the politics, good, complex story telling, the politics are a little hard to figure out. it's hard to figure out the politic os of homeland exactly. >> as you said before, the requested idea, if you can offend everybody, you've done your job. and the fact that rush limbaugh and love a show. >> and bill clinton. >> maybe barbra streisand, how far left can i go. >> but in "unthinkable" did the issue of torture become part of the debate? >> that's what it was. it was about taking the famous ticking clock scenario, which i'm sure you're familiar with, and dramatizing it. a man has put four nuclear poms an american soil, how -- bombs on american soil, how far do you go to get it out of him? what are the lines you're willing to go up to or beyond to cey the entire united states

of america and everyone in it? or do you have to negotiate with this man's human rights? what are the parameters? so the film was a dramity sargse of that. and again, there are difficult to read what the politics of it were. it was sort of, you can watch the entire film and still, everyone has their own view of it. being the man who actually the film is about a c.i.a. agent, american c.i.a. agent who is working in iraq, disappears, nobody knows where he is, pops up in a mall in america and gives himself up and then when he's brought in, he says to these -- he's converted to islam and puts -- has put these bombs around the place. then sam jackson's character comes in, having opinion a -- been a torturer, using torture in bod boss theea and the film is about me being tortured by samuel jackson, pushing to see

how far everybody concerned is prepared to go to get the information out of him. it was incredibly difficult film to make, for me. i remember turning up on the first day we were going to do one of the torture things, which was, i believe, i was chained to the ceiling with a bag other my head with nothing on apart from a pair of boxer short, hosed down with water and fans blowing on me. i said how are we going to do this? they said, we're just going to do this, just not for very long. i was being water boarded, they're like, it's all right, you'll have clips on your nose, it'll be ok. so it was very frightening thing. but the point you bring up, that people desire to be involved in helping, depends on what they believe is how they're being portrayed. and that gets very complicated. >> it's understandable.

they have a job. >> it's challenging, anybody who is in sort of a public affairs position within a government agency, you know, they report, they're just trying not to get in trouble. >> are there agencies who are better or less? >> the f.b.i., i think, mueller really believed in the idea. he had sort of watched the crastcrast effect that "c.s.i." created more -- the "c.s.i." effect, that "c.s.i." created more interest in people going into forensic science and that -- that college programs couldn't go fast enough to put people through. he had watched that and realized as the f.b.i., he wanted to make being an f.b.i. agent cool. he was very supportive. >> it was a recruiting vehicle. >> it was a good recruiting vehicle and that was his interest in it. john miller, with ran public affairs with him for a long

time and was, i think, like the deputy head, very -- a high-ranking public affairs guy, sort of come out of television, has gone back to television and understood it and there was, even with the best of intentions, there was enormous tension the whole way through. i said, you know, if we're going to do modern television that people are going to watch, it has too much character flaws. there was enormous negotiation over drinking, smoking, sex, what kind of sex, where and when and how and it just, they had the best of intentions, i was very direct with them going in. it's still, i would say that was the best experience. >> ultimately the show didn't work. >> it wasn't quite good enough, wasn't quite original enough. as crazy as carrie matheson is, as psychologically damaged, i do believe that carrie matheson

makes the c.i.a. sexy. makes it like a sexy place to work, an interesting place to work. i bet it would in it a huge positive to getting quality people into the c.i.a. despite her -- all of her personal problems. and i think -- somebody should ask the c.i.a., what's happened in the last six months in recruiting? >> they been very cooperate i. >> it would be hard for any government agency to put their neck on the line and say, yeah, aisle going to support a bipolar agent sleeping with an islamic radical. >> in some ways, it highlights those things more when you look at it in terms of one person. through the whole journey of "drost frost-nixon," with david frost, with his relationship with david frost with it, it

was a play on broadway, then in london, then a movie. the first preview in a theater in london, the entire back row were all of frost's lawyers. the third preview david himself was there. having sort of been given the all-clear or at least told you should go and see it yourself. and he was very sort of shaken by it to begin with. i think for a man who is incredibly generous and very warm and very positive and very supportive of everything, i think he felt very confused by how he should react to this. as the whole thing went on, as it started to become clear this was not only going to be a hit but a massive hit, in term os they have play and the theater version of it, he started to get behind it. buzz he's a very good businessman. and he tarted -- started to go well, ok, there's a certain amount of this that i don't believe actually happened, is

not true. we have someone in the audience who knows more about it. but you know, i think he made a judgment call which was, and i think this is the same with the agencies and whoever is working on it, who is being represented, you have to work out, are we going to get more good? he was never going to be able to control how he was portrayed in it. i'm sure if the f.b.i. and the c.i.a. and the military could control it, i'm sure they would. it's a kind of give and take. the difficult thing is when -- from an artistic point of view, how much are you being koch miesed in terms of what you want to do and the story you want to tell, and the same on the other side, what was interesting with "frost-nixon" was that david famously had gone to the premier of a film he was a producer of the night before he did his first interview with nixon and was criticized for that. on the opening night in the west end of "frost-nixon," he

was interviewing blare the next morning and -- blair the next morning and decided he wouldn't come to the premier last night because look at what happened last anytime. -- last time. he interviewed blair and managed to get out of blair an admission that the iraq war was a disaster. which nobody had got. you could say he learned something from last time and got what the he did better. there's an interesting give and take with the whole thing. >> so we heard this afternoon, this morning, rather, from a senior saudi arabiaian government official that he felt that american television program, through the period of the 1970's' -- 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, had demonstrated american values to the world. how do you think the world outside the united states is viewing shows like "24" and "homeland"? what effect do you think -- have you heard anything at all?

>> well, "24" and "homeland" are extremely popular not just in germany and the u.k. but in jordan an turkey and places that, frankly "24" is a huge hit in iran. it's beamed in illegally by i can't remember the name -- anyway. >> you're not getting paid for it. >> no, i'm not getting paid for it. >> it's smuggled in a lot. we heard this -- we heard from the actor in it, he's persian, and still has a lot of kecks in iran. he's been tracking "homeland" in iran. >> and it's stunningly popular. but at the same time i've read alja year rah and other -- al-jazeera and other criticisms of the show. i think we piss people off on

every side of the aisle and are embrised by them too, i think that's a good thepping. one thing i did learn is that as an export, as a public face, as -- we do have some responsibility, some, certainly, influence on, this is an american expert. it's a real -- we're really good at this. we make really good movies and television shows and always have. it is what the world sees of us. there's a book called "what a billion muslims really think," by -- i can't remember, it doesn't matter. it's a researcher from the gal up organization. they polled people in egypt. what is your feeling about americans? and i don't like america but i like americans. have you met an american? 100% said no. a very small percentage had met americans. the followup question, how do you know you like americans? and the answer was "friends." they've watched the show

"friends." >> based on that, i like americans too. >> it's true, it's true. >> but there is -- politics demonizes and culture humanizes. there really is, you create some essential truth about tony blair. >> this is an important thing. when you're doing in the case of the things i've within involved in, that we're taking about, based on real people, real events in the case of "homeland" and "24" it's not paced on actual, specific things that happened but the responsibility of how would you portray these things? what's the responsibility of how you portray these things? >> i'm quite annoying to howard because i'm the only -- i think i'm the one person connected with "homeland" who grew up in d.c. i obsess on tiny details like -- >> the starbucks. >> m-street -- m street isn't a

one-way street, it goes both ways. >> it's liking ok, david. >> i think you get enough of those details right that people can buy into the show. you know. barack obama is not watching the show because it's a brilliant portrayal of the c.i.a. it gets enough of the details right of what it feels like to be in those situations, what it feels like -- i have no idea if he watch this is eshow. >> i think it's less about the details. to the extent i've spoken to -- one person described it as, there is a, it's in the a polemic. audiences smell propaganda. but if you can introduce the complexity of the -- >> the complexity of what they do. >> "24" was all about not a good choice and a bad choice but the better of bad choices. if there's a formula or trope of "24" that would have been it. i think these people saw it and

maybe president obama sees it as well. there's something about the presentation of the complexity of some of the things, the people who are charged with these jobs have to deal with. >> writing it and imagining it makes me grateful that it's not my job. i just try to imagine how tough some of the these real life decisions must be. make you grateful -- >> and the danger with the sort of stuff i've been doing is that for a lot of people, the version that we show in "frost-nixon," or "the queen," that's what people -- >> it's the historical record. >> art itself is working, when people asked me about, there's a pivotal scene in "frost-nixon" which is to do with a phone call between nixon and frost which never happened. people say, how could that -- how could you show that?

that's a 3i69al -- pivotal moment in the piece? and the same with "the queen," one of the big scenes that everyone remember sthess scene between the queen and the stag, and that never happened. peter morgan envented that and he invented the phone call. nickson did used to make phone calls. part of his research was there were times when he was on hey medication at times and could make phone call he is wouldn't remember. his staff were told, if the president calls you, during the middle of the night, stay on the phone, he will eventually fall asleep, he will -- you put the phone down an never mention it. i used to say is it a valid argument -- if it's a ballet, "frost-nixon," is it valid to say he never plea aed -- blied

around nixon? i think the audience response to whether there's a sense of complexity that's true to the spirit of something but that's a balancing act against, is it with the facts? i watched "argo," and one of the things i was unclear about, the most exciting part of it, the only thing that didn't actually happen, is that valid? i'm not saying it's not or it is, but it's interesting. how much can entertainment rely on things that didn't happen to come up with the entertainment factor if it's supposed to show real events? >> tell us about your new piece. >> i will be working for mr. the vince very soon on a piece about -- for mr. nevins very soon on a piece about masters and johnson. >> an ongoing series about

masters and johnson which i think has not been done. there are these sort of conventions about how popular entertainment gets made. we do historical pieces, we do a series -- series about the borgias or the tudors but real 20th century figures, they're done in movies but not done in series. so of course it's going to, a series over the course of however many episodes we end up making will take great liberties with the historical record. but it'll been an interesting -- my rule of thumb in terms of play -- >> my rule of thumb in term os playing the individual characters, as the process goes on, the more i find out about the character i'm play, the more research i do, the more i start to totally immerse myself in their life, the more i start to come in and argue with the writer and director and say, he

wouldn't do that, this happened and this happened and they say, michael, it's a story. when i first come up against the script, i don't know enough about the person themselves to say, he didn't do this, he didn't do that. i have to agree to doing it or not on trust. and by a sort of gut instinct. as i start to find out more and more, luckily each thing i've worked on, i've found that where it does depart from the factual record i still feel like it's portraying something that has the spirit of it and somehow, it's like, when people say not every fact is true and not every truth is a fact, you somehow manage to get across something far more complex and three dimensional than you could if you just show the facts. because it's about the relations. >> i passed on some things, something was recently pitched to me about a very prominent public contemporary figure

series. it may be, i didn't have the guts to do it. it felt somehow wrong to try to make a fictional thing, it's one thing to do, maybe that's the line. so masters and johnson, virginia johnson is still alive. masters is not. but their moment of prominence is, you know, 1960's, 1980's, 1980's. but i felt -- 1970's, 1980's. but i felt uncomfortable commissioning a tv show based on real people where we were going to fictionalize their lives as necessary and it's not the controlability of one two-hour script but an ongoing series, we're going to be making up episodes that felt like a bridge too far for me at this moment. but i wonder if someday it wouldn't be an interesting thing to do. to do not just the satire of the white house that you get on "saturday night live" but you know to do --

>> having to do with a major terrorist attack. >> to d the obama story while obama is in office. >> which is what we did -- >> it takes a lot of balls to do that. >> i remember looking at it and it was very much exploring the area of the women and all that kind of stuff. i was aware that this was such -- because you're now dealing not just with facts but mythology and the american psyche and what kenly represents an what -- going into the darker side of camelot could do and what it could open up, and i just thought this is too much for me. also it has to be handled, i didn't think that -- every project like that this is been around that i've come across, i don't think anyone has been able to handle it in a way that i would feel comfortable

getting involved in. you have to be aware you're opening up a massive can of worms there for someone to get into that and all the ramifications of it. the idea of people in high-ranking positions and adulterous affairs and all that is something that clearly is still very current. and that is an ongoing, there would be something valid and interesting and exciting about getting involved in exploring that issue but you're starting to tinker with things that are, you start to wake a dragon. maybe if you don't feel like you have the machine in place to deal with that, then it's like kind of -- it can be, the danger is i remember at drama school, you have acting teachers who think that somehow they're qualified to deal with psychoanalyzing their students buzz they've done these kinds of things. it's like, you have -- you're starting to mess with people's psyches. you have to be careful with

that kind of subject matter. >> why don't we take some questions from the audience now. i'm sure they have a few. yes. >> where do i apply as an extra for masters and johnson? >> you have to get naked pretty quickly. >> now that i've got the serious one out of the way, why is it offensive for you to do a film or whatever it is you're going, masters and johnson, yet it's ok to make up a phone call of nixon and frost? >> say that again? >> why sit ok to do that and not to do this? where do you draw the line on making up stuff for entertainment purposes? the queen thing, the phone call? >> i think there's -- the line

is i don't want to mess with -- i don't mind messing with history, i don't mind interpreting history, creating -- i would feel -- i would feel uncomfortable messing with an individual or a group of individuals, you know, who, making up stuff about them as it's happening. i think there's a distinction. and i'm not sure it's a moral distinction but you just -- i think you're on shakier ground sort of clowning somebody out or making up stories on an ongoing basis when, you know, somebody is still living and working.

>> like i said, i'm going to speak on behalf of peter morgan who wrote "frost-nixon" but my understanding would be that in create drama you have to distill certain events, you cant show everything that happened, so at times you have to find an entertaining, powerful, distillation for something that so i feel like if you portray someone doing something that is totally out of character to them, that is clearly -- that's where i would draw the line. but in terms of peter coming up with that phone call event which allowed certain things about nixon to be able to come to the floor, certain things about frost to come to the floor, certain things they both

did that there was no place for in this whole narrative, it brought things together in a way that didn't cross the line of responsibility of what you show and don't show and somehow it was able to make something more complex in a way. the actual events were in some ways less complex in that story and peter found a way to make it more complex and show a vulnerable about nixon and bound him and frost together, the idea of two people who see themselves as outsiders and see reflections of each other and see mirror images of each other, so it created this powerful,

dramatic metaphor for something that didn't not happen if you see what i mean. that kind of thing happened and it just created a turning point in the film that the story needed at that point. and for me personally i didn't feel it crossed the line. but it is the one thing that i've been involved in, every film i've been involved in people go what, that didn't happen. and whose responsibility sit to find out the truth. i do think for a lot of people the pims we do and tv shows we do are as far as people are going to go in terms of what actually happened. it's not like you can't find out stuff. there is stuff everywhere. so if it causes people to say i'm going to find out more about this, that's great. i'm not sure how much. i don't know how much you can be blamed for well, i thought that was true and it's not. it's up to you to find that out, isn't it? >> particularly when you are dealing with some subjects that are incendiary. 80% of americans found out their medical details from "house."

>> my throat hurts, what is that? >> but it is something i think every artist, writer, executive in this medium what is my responsibility to the truth and what is my moral legal responsibility? i think those are lines nobody draws but as long as you are asking the questions -- >> we've never asked that question. >> never. >> blair's wife is famously litigious, where you get sued the lawyers are on the phone all the time with all these things. are'm grateful you clarified and said your limits. i want to tell you a story and

ask you a question. somebody was at warner brothers at the time when "j.f.k." was being made. there was a shot warner brothers wouldn't release. that was right after the assassination in dallas they got to l.b.j. sitting in his office. the phone rings he picks up the phone and somebody says it's done and he hangs up the phone. i was telling that story and said it didn't appear until the film but a student from germany said i saw that scene in germany. if it's in the foreign version and not in the domestic version, i think that says things about americans that will not be easily scrubbed from any mind. make believe does make believe. i'd like your comment on that

but i'd like an answer to this question, when a lot of people overseas see an american film in which torture is used unrepeated, if there were a case in which somebody felt in effect that i've seen it in american television, i believe it happens, i believe it's okay or they wouldn't show it on television and without license committed torture, would you feel any personal responsibility about that, how would you feel? >> just on the j.f.k. assassination thing. i just read one of stephen king's new books which is about the assassination and a man who has the ability to go back in time and tries to stop the

assassination of j.f.k. does that mean we should put a thing on the front and say this didn't happen? at what point is it someone's responsibility to find out whether there is a backing up of that argument. it seems ridiculous when it's about time travel because there is no time travel yet. to a lot of people that would be absurd, where is that line? it's a gray area. >> i think the answer to somebody who will look at -- watch "24" and say see didn't i tell you americans are torture mongers. it goes to the old question of what is the effect, what's the cause and what's the effect of art and on public perception and behavior. would i personally feel responsible? i thought about it and i do think we all bear some

responsibility but not complete responsibility. so somebody who doesn't have a critical capacity to turn on a television and realize this is fiction, this is not a representation, that people will read this as a reflection of american policy or of america is an unfortunate possibility and in some cases i'm sure only underscores preexisting beliefs in any opinion. but i think -- yeah, i don't know what to say except i've thought an awful lot about it and something like "24" was singled out for instance. i think it belongs to a long literature from dirty harry. people were protesting

americans. people loved "dirty harry." there was this consequence of events. where is the line drawn? by putting masters and johnson are they going to say look at these shameless americans who are promoting wanting sexuality where do you draw the line? >> i feel my duty as an artist like i said right at the beginning, my ultimate responsibility to represent human beings who are three dimensional and are flawed and have gray areas. i have to feel like there isn't one -- i just find it artistically dull for something to be overly politicized.

i don't feel like that about the truth. so the characters i portray hopefully i bring that to the character, there is good and bad. i would also need to see that. it increases a kind of dignity and respect and understanding for the people involved. this is where i get into gray areas. you agree with his politics? it becomes very difficult. the more you get immersed, the more it is odd to see them as just a politician. my personal responsibility would be to make sure the complexity of each person and the complexity of each situation is explored as fully as possible.

>> [inaudible] oliver stone is a master of this. i am trying to square his very perceptive about an emotional truth with this something that is emotionally untrue. the same thing, the paranoid

theories about fdr being behind pearl harbor. i'm trying to find the roots to this paranoia. i do not like to see paranoia perpetuated. >> i agree. the idea of showing lbj on the phone -- it is an artistic failure more than anything else. >> there are questions of taste. is that an interesting artistic choice? is it cheesy? we all face those choices all the time. michael faces those decisions. do i believe it represents some truth? do i think it is cheesy or false? >> there are certain things

that decrease the complexity. the lbj it decreases the complexities. it simplifies it in a way that is banal and uninteresting. i think that answers both sides of it. from a factual point of view, i see no evidence to back that up. someone could do a film about the theories of 9/11. i guess someone is allowed to make a film about the most ridiculous ideas about 9/11. it would be difficult to do that in a way that was compelling. it would artistically be a failure, i would imagine. if someone can make a brilliant portrayal of the most ridiculous theories about 9/11, i would be amazed. >> over here. >> [inaudible] what was portrayed on the news

was the truth. we all deal with that with their own children. i look at the question of the world. in america, the criteria [inaudible] what do we already know? that is one standard. we are putting things out into the world. there are many people -- everything that is portrayed about america is the truth. huge damage can be done in the

world -- there are unintended consequences. huge damage can be done. i do not know how you put it into your arithmetic, into your calculus. >> some people are more thoughtful than others. some artists are more thoughtful than others. i am not the artist. i am one of the gatekeepers. it is something i think about. you areweighing a lot of different things. i do believe that in television, in my experience, the good stuff wins.

when i have had success, it was something that was interesting and provocative. people are more and more literate. it translates beyond america. it is hard to answer for jack bauer and how he handles a difficult situation as a sole representative of how an american deals with somebody in who has a piece of information. it is a very hard thing to answer. that is a problem with literacy. that is a problem with education. there is an inevitable path of increasing sophistication, the amount of information that people can process and the amount of narrative complexity that people can process.

it is on an increasing curve. >> i know you are an optimist. >> i am optimistic. look at television in 1968 versus or television is today. look at what the cbs evening newscast from 1974 versus what is happening today. it has become more politicized. the ability to process information has grown. these are issues of education. >> [inaudible]

>> right. it is now more obvious. >> there is ongoing battle globally. people are putting out ideas. various ways, hidden or not, and value systems for these arguments. that is going on all the time. every single person involved on whatever level in our industry is putting something out there. obviously, you have to take responsibility for it. you try to work out exactly --

you join in a battle. someone else is saying probably the opposite. you have to get in there and do it. other people will not stop and you have to do battle with them. my own feeling is anything that opens up, creates more complexity, because it stops people from coming away from it with a black-and-white argument. i am very proud of it. people have totally different interpretations, depending on what their point of view is. it puts the emphasis back on them. it allows the space to allow people to say, i will find out more about that. there is something confusing about complexity. >> there is a question over here. >> i have one comment and two questions. m street is one way.

in georgetown. [laughter] >> m street is one way. that was the wrong example. [laughter] >> we will not be held accountable. >> it eventually got right in the script. >> you made me think, that is what is important. >> thank you. >> you talked a lot about your interpretation of past history. it is my hunch that "24" affected the future of history by presenting an admirable black president. i would like to know what you think.

i have my second question -- [laughter] where did michael buy his socks? [laughter] >> that was my question. >> they were a present. from someone with incredible taste. they are british. >> i find it ironic that the notion of that black president, although he was just a presidential candidate in season 1, was created by a republican that probably was not thinking he was paving the way for barack obama. you make interesting choices. >> he has a picture in his office -- it is president obama

looking this way. and then there is a portrait of david palmer. >> build it, and they will come. if you create the concept of something that was not there before, it creates the possibility. that is the extraordinary power of art. >> president obama and david palmer came from the same ether. it became far more interesting than some white-haired old dude. it did represent fictionally

what barack obama represented factually. the best of what america could be. having only emancipated slaves 100 and something years before could put as its chief executive of black man. it was better drama. >> it was a very deliberate choice. it was a story telling choice. >> it was a more interesting choice. >> trying to create stakes. the assassination would be a national catastrophe. the first african american with a chance for the white house.

that is where the choice came from. >> last question. yes? >> [inaudible] i want to circle back about what you said about the saudi ambassador. you've already discussed with you think about. what control does you have over the show's going there and being translated, and maybe not the dialogue that you intended? how does that work? according to him, this is a huge influence in how we are viewed. >> it is a distribution -- what control do we have in terms of distribution? >> [inaudible] >> she is asking an artistic

question. >> i sent fox has some monitoring. >> that is not the question you are asking. >> it is the same. it is either subtitled or dubbed. >> thank you. >> we are doing "24" in india. the fictional prime minister of the country he was a bollywood star. he is playing jack bauer. i do think there is a great opportunity for cultural diplomacy not withstanding the hazard that a show like "24" might have had. there is a tremendous power and responsibility.

it is good that those of us to do this and create the content are mindful that we have that power. it is easy to get isolated in los angeles. it is a little bit of a twinkie defense to say that it is just a television show. >> as the moderator, i will make one comment. i grew up in the netherlands. there are 19 political parties.

they used to buy time. interestingly, in the mid- 1970's, the show's the labor party showed was "all in the family." the more conservative party showed "m.a.s.h." you can never really understand how it is going to be manipulated by local agendas and parties. that was my experience. let me ask a last question. aside from things that you have been directly involved with, is

there a film or documentary or television show which you think is a great example of what hollywood can mean to public policy and politics? is there a singular documentary film, television show, which stands out to you? >> "mr. smith goes to washington." no matter what your politics are, i cannot imagine anyone watching that film not being somehow moved to have a voice. to be able to put a voice to experience and your point of view. i suppose that gets me every

time. >> good choice. >> mine was "it's a wonderful life." it was a snapshot of an imagined america. to the extent that was a window to the rest of the world, people at their best. >> my reaction was "saturday night live." i love politics, i love the sport of politics. i like satire. >> i am going to cheat and say "12 angry men." >> all of holland came to a stop at 7:00 on monday night. thank you very much.

>> tamara changes to the u.s. tax code as a result of the passage of the fiscal cliff bill. the president of citizens against government waste looks at what is in the fiscal cliff legislation including tax breaks for nascar. jay hancock tax about the taxes and fees in the american space as part is the affordable care act. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> studentcam videos are now do. it is your chance of a grand prize of $5,000. there are $50,000 in total prices. prices.